commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Don Brown <>
Subject Re: [Configuration] experimental branch uses java.util.logging?
Date Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:30:33 GMT
Sure, but that's kinda my point - many webapps, ours (Atlassian) in
particular, cannot assume a specific application server.  Our apps
must be able to be dropped into any app server, with any other
webapps, and still be expected to play nicely.  Even inserting a root
logger that filters for packages don't help, as another app could be
using the same library.  Again, all other serious logging libraries
support this, what I would label, basic feature.  Even commons
logging, with all its flaws, allows us to reimplement their API's (in
an OSGi environment) to handle the logging, but since JUL is a java.*
package, we're stuck.


On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Emmanuel Bourg<> wrote:
> Don Brown a écrit :
>> I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but isn't there one huge disadvantage of
>> JUL - lack of per-webapp configuration?  How would one webapp decide to
>> redirect JUL to a file without affecting any other webapp in the same JVM?
>> If this is indeed the case, JUL is a showstopper for any webapp that can't
>> assume they are the only webapp in the JVM, which is just about everyone.
> Tomcat supports per webapp JUL configuration. I don't know for the other
> servers.
> Emmanuel Bourg
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message